On the day this interview took place Cian O Tighearnaigh was finalising arrangements for the recent Childline Benefit concert which starred acts such as Boyzone, All Saints and Chill, all of whom gave their services free.
Childline is a service provided by the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and if proof were needed that the estimated #100,000 the concert would raise was absolutely vital to an organisation, then it was there in headline stories carried by at least two national newspapers on the Sunday we spoke.
In one, the headline read Gardai Quiz Kerry Father Over Sale Of Child Claim . The story beneath told the horrific tale of a fifteen-year-old boy who says he was abused by his father and forced to have sex with a number of local men. The second newspaper had a similar front page story, in which the solicitor representing the Dublin Branch of the Irish Amateur Swimming Association hinted strongly at the existence of a paedophile ring within the sport.
Tellingly, just two weeks beforehand, the ISPCC had issued a press release stating that in the absence of a clearly defined vetting and reporting procedure, the failure to protect children so evident in the sport of swimming, will continue to place children at risk.
Following the conviction of swimming coach Derry O Rourke on charges of sexual abuse, the organisation raised some pointed questions. How many children a press statement asked in how many settings must be failed by current reporting systems before the Government introduces mandatory reporting and its associated protocols and protections?
All of which suggests that not only is the ISPCC on-the-case in terms of child abuse but, in many ways, is racing ahead of Government thinking indeed, making a mockery of lack of Government action on this most sensitive of issues.

Joe Jackson: What is your response to these new allegations about the farmer in Kerry selling his son for sexual abuse by other men?
Cian O Tighearnaigh: My response is that people who were saying that what happened in Belgium in 1995 couldn t happen in Ireland were wrong. There was a paedophile ring in Belgium and children were being abducted, either for child abuse or for child labour. And we were saying, at the time, that until you have proper structures to protect children and ways of monitoring the activities of people who would be dangerous to children, the same thing definitely happen in this country. And it would appear, from that story, that we are looking at something similar here. But then, in Ireland, part of the problem is this naive view that families will not do anything dangerous to children. The notion that a family, in a small community, would sell a child proves just how naive this belief can be. And there have been a number of cases here in Ireland where it is suspected that people have been swapping their own children for paedophile activities. But then I m wary of the word paedophile .
Why?
Let s call it child sexual abuse . Because paedophile is the most comfortable form of child sexual abuse for society to look at. It feeds into our perception that paedophiles and child sexual abusers are green-headed monsters, that can be identified a hundred yards away. The picture of Brendan Smith moving slowly across the screen on the RTE news bulletin is not what he seemed like to the average child in Belfast who he abused, and where he was seen as this nice, old, smiling priest who had sweets in the boot of the car.
Doesn t the media add to this problem by, for example, presenting Brendan Smith as a monster ?
Increasingly. The media is soundbite-based. And its understanding of issues is reductionist. It has to get the message out quickly and in a digestible form for the public. Consequently, some of the very real, multi-faceted complexities in child abuse are lost.
Before we look at some of those complexities, do you, yourself, have any personal experience of child abuse?
Certainly not in a family context. But as I grew up, in South Dublin, I saw institutionalised child abuse in the classroom, in the Christian Brothers in Stillorgan. The thinking at the time was that children were wild animals whose spirit, or will, you had to break. And I myself definitely remember that teachers would come into the classroom and each individual, in response, would cry. That was the clearest manifestation that your will was broken. When he touched the door handle in the morning I certainly would cry because that was the easiest way to protect yourself for the day! But then this was the 60s and otherwise, by God, the Christian Brothers would mete out some punishment, leave guys with their hands bloodied and ears swollen.
Presumably we have progressed somewhat from that kind of violence and intimidation in school?
Thankfully, one of the most notable things that happened, nearly silently this year, was that the Non-Fatal Offences Against The Person Act made it a criminal offence for a teacher to hit a child. There was a Departmental Regulation in 1982 which abolished physical punishment in schools but now a parent, if their child is hit or assaulted in a school, can take a criminal or civil action. That is a substantial shift from those days when Christian Brothers systematically abused children.
What is your response to the report that there may be or may have been a paedophile ring operating within some branch or branches of the Irish Amateur Swimming Association?
I think it is uncanny that so many people who were operating at a senior level in swimming in Ireland have turned out to be multiple-abusers of children. It is also clear that there was considerable knowledge, not just in the swimming community, but in the community at large, that there was something rotten in swimming. And it is very clear that these people who are now seen as having been part of that vice ring were able to maintain very senior positions in the IASA. You don t do that on your own. If one maverick is engaging in outrageous behaviour, someone somewhere along the line will take action. But if you have a number of people behind you, you can build a power bloc which can maintain silence. We really do have to move beyond the view that there is any coincidence in all this.
So are you saying that the IASA knew about this vice ring and did a cover-up?
It is a verified fact that innuendo and rumour was rampant in swimming for many years. It is also increasingly clear that there were ongoing reports made and that these people in the IASA didn t act. But the IASA, to me, are representative of the broad community. Let s not just look at one organisation here. I have spoken to people whose children were swimming and who were swimmers themselves and they now say everybody knew about Gibney and O Rourke. But part of the problem is that the IASA weren t aware enough themselves, in terms of how to deal with this problem.
What do you want to see happening now?
I want a major criminal investigation into the possibility that there was an organised ring or unconnected individuals some of whom could still be in place seriously abusing children. It is the view of the ISPCC that swimming needs to be investigated thoroughly. Even if that means you subpoena people and make them give sworn statements. We also would feel that the whole area of child protection needs a judicial enquiry.
Look at the McColgan case, where the most outrageous behaviour happened. In 1979 one of the children came into hospital with a serious physical injury. The mother told the officials that it was a non-accidental injury and that they felt at risk and wanted the children taken into care. That was enough to have triggered a major response that should have kept those children safe. Instead, this was followed by a litany of failed opportunities. But there has been a great silence about that since the case. The McColgans were brave, to go into that court in the first place, to make a statement for all the children who have been abused. And who are still being abused. And that statement was we have come to get justice, even from the system that failed us. And in going to court, Sophia McColgan did say they were going not simply for money but to open up the system for others. And what they have opened up is the potential for such litigation that Health Board practices will have to be impacted, changed.
So are you saying you want the Health Boards, specifically the Eastern Health Board, investigated in relation to the question of negligence?
Well, what I d like to know, specifically in relation to the IASA is if, at any stage, anecdotally or formally, anybody in swimming or in the Gardai, who were investigating O Rourke, talked with the Eastern Health Board. Derry O Rourke worked in a school, lived in a community and represented a real risk to children outside swimming. All the pious statements, in the witness box, about how he behaved in the community, don t impress me. That s just one of the questions I wanted answered, in relation to the Eastern Health Board. The statutory responsibility to protect and ensure that the IASA was following good practice, does rest with a body like the Eastern Health Board. Let s not forget that fact. And it does seem that the statutory services which had that responsibility, and were nowhere in the frame at the time as in the Eastern Heath Board are now washing their hands of this one and walking away. That mustn t be allowed to happen.
What do you suspect?
I honestly don t know. But I would be amazed if our systems of reporting are so disjointed that one arm of the statutory services, as in the Gardai, felt under no obligation to talk to the Eastern Health Board about these allegations. And if the health board had any information, what happened? Forget swimming for a minute. How was this individual still at loose in society? With access to children in his own family and in the broader community? These questions must be asked, in relation to the Eastern Health Board and the Gardai. And that s why I m anxious about the fact that the total focus of this investigation doesn t become just an amateur swimming organisation, as in the IASA. We know the IASA didn t follow proper guidelines. The bigger question is who was told, who knew, who acted, who didn t act? Gibney was known to have abused, so what was done in the light of Gibney? Far more than just the IASA have questions to answer on this one.
There are apparently 600-1,000 cases of child abuse awaiting attention by the Eastern Health Board alone. The ISPCC describes this situation as a national scandal of deeper significance than the Hepatitis C scandal .
It is. And if there are 1,000 cases out there, how do we know any one or them isn t a McColgan or a Kelly Fitzgerald? I noticed, incidentally, that this statement was diluted from what Roisin Shortall, chairperson of the Eastern Health Board, was saying on the Vincent Browne Show, from unaddressed cases to ongoing cases. Either way, it absolutely confirms our worst fears about the Health Board perspective, which is we will do what we can do within the existing resource base . But the legal obligation on the eight Health Boards, as defined in the Child Care Act, is that they will promote the welfare of children, that the best interests of the child are their primary concern and that they will identify children at risk and protect them. We ve signed the UN Convention, which has a similar proscription. The Health Boards, and the Government, are failing children on all those fundamental levels. And failing parents.
The ISPCC also claims that Health Board failures at this level are particularly absurd, given that in 1995 a government fell as a result of a delay in investigating two child abuse cases.
Absolutely. And now we hear talk of 600-1,000 cases where there is a delay, so if the political system was responsive then, why not now? Why did Brendan Smyth bring child abuse into the range of practical politics and then, as quickly as we had him jailed and a Governmental change, suddenly it was a forgotten issue? We ve had Kelly Fitzgerald, Madonna House, Brendan Smyth and we now have swimming, so why aren t politicians reacting against all this, putting the necessary procedures, practices and structures in place? I ll tell you why. There s two things politicians respond to. One is voters and the other is the officials the politicians turn to for advice. And the problem is that these officials seem to be operating along the lines of: Minister, do you know how much it would cost us if we put these practices and procedures into place? In other words, thousands of children must wait and have their lives blighted because bureaucrats and politicians can not re-prioritise children s safety above the millions we give, in subsidies, to people who look after cows or the billions we spend on roads.
In fact, you have always argued that the real cost to the government, further down the line, if they don t implement these practices and procedures, will be far greater.
Absolutely. My point always has been that the real cost to the State, of not providing children with real care, not acting quickly, not taking the initiative now will be ten times more at some point in the future. Statistics from America show that every dollar spent of prevention saves ten dollars later. Don t politicians and their bureaucrats understand even that figure? And, okay, the McColgans walked out of court with a million pounds and the reason the Health Board paid that million was because they didn t want to hear the evidence in the court about the quality of their practice. Therefore there is an awareness in the health boards that they are dealing with a potential for huge civil litigation for negligence and failure to live up to legal responsibility. So they, too, are terrified of the cost of all this.
The ISPCC also argues that we have a responsibility to report even suspected cases of child abuse.
Yes. But the problem is that there is a perception that if you make a report of abuse you can be the subject of litigation. But the reality is that if somebody talked to the Health Board, the Gardai, or us, it would be seen, by the courts, as under an occasion of qualified privilege . Meaning they wouldn t be subject to civil litigation. Alan Shatter s recent Bill clarifies that point and, more importantly, says that a person shouldn t be discriminated against, in their employment, for standing with the child, for the needs of the child. If you re going to embarrass an organisation, saying, I m not happy with what we ve done for this child, the child is still not safe , then that person needs to know, if they are not promoted or if they are dismissed, that they can take that into a tribunal of enquiry.
In the IASA, were people afraid to be vocal about the children who were being abused?
Yes. But that brings us back to a problem we, in the ISPCC have, when someone calls and says I know a child who is being abused and here s the address. We say, Okay, can we have your name? and they say I m not in a position to give my name. What you have to say to that person is You ve just told me that you are afraid for that child s life, so I m going to ask you: what price are you willing to pay to act to protect that child and how will you feel at the coroner s inquest, when you re saying why you didn t act?
Where do you stand on the contentious issue of the exact point at which a child becomes an adult, becomes a free sexual being with the right to decide who he, or she, wants to have sex with? Referring to the current case of the 24-year-old woman who became pregnant by a 14-year-old boy, Dr Bhamjee said such a case should not go to court.
That is an outrageous statement. He is talking about statutory rape! He is talking about child abuse. He is talking about a ten-year age difference and completely, obviously, fails to understand the notion of informed consent. The age of sexual consent in this country is seventeen. And I believe it is fair to say that nobody under seventeen can give informed consent .
It may seem fair for you to say that but it also seems totally unrealistic.
Of course under-seventeen-year-olds are sexual, sexualised, and will engage in sexual experimentation and activity. But there is a huge difference between peer sexual activity and sexual activity that happens between a minor, beneath the age of sexual consent, and an adult. If an adult engages in sexual activity with someone under the age of consent, they must bear responsibility for the fact that the youngster can not give informed consent. That s what I believe. And this notion of the child wanted it is totally absurd. But you can see where it comes from. Books like Lolita, the film The Lover, the fact that major rock stars have had relationships with girls of fourteen or fifteen. I have stood in courts and heard defence council get a hearing for saying to a judge, This seven-year-old initiated the sexual activity. As in She pulled down my zipper and she put her hand in there. I remember, on one occasion, a judge responding to that appropriately by saying And if she had put her hand in your jacket pocket to steal your wallet, what would you have done? Our position, in the ISPCC, on this whole issue is clear. But we do not believe that the system should be punitive or criminally investigative of peer sexual activity where there is no sense of compulsion or abuse of power.
Even if a couple is under age as in, say, fourteen?
There is no point in criminalising a fourteen-year-old for having sex or getting a fourteen-year-old girl pregnant. Though I do believe that every under-age pregnancy should be the subject of a child protection investigation, because how many times have we found out that a girl, who said she got pregnant by her fourteen-year-old boyfriend , was actually raped by her father and tried to cover it up with such claims? But if it turns out, after that investigation, that the pregnancy is a result of peer sexual activity, there should be no question of criminalising that couple. But when you talk of an adult having sex with someone who is under-age you are talking about a criminal offence.
But Dr. Bhamjee claims there was consent between that fourteen-year-old boy and the twenty-four-year-old woman. Are you saying she raped that boy?
Yes. And if that was a twenty-four-year-old man and a fourteen-year-old girl Bhamjee wouldn t risk his professional reputation by saying that publicly. It s an outrageous claim. But then in today s Sunday Independent there is also an outrageous article by Patricia Redlich, where she says that mandatory reporting will encourage everybody to be informers and that things need to be dealt with in the context of the family, that we need to support the family, not to stigmatise the family. Suddenly, while reading that article I realise what she s describing here as needing to be dealt with in a therapeutic model as distinct from a criminal or investigative model is rape!
You re not suggesting that Patricia Redlich is, in some sense, attempting to justify rape if it takes places within the context of the family?
She s obviously very confused. But then in Ireland, we ve believed for a long time that the sacred family, should be defined in terms of its structure rather than its function. For me, a family is defined by function. It s a unit of nurturence which either nurtures children or doesn t.
The best parenting I ve ever seen done has been by single parents, and some of the worst parenting I ve ever seen done has been in the context of the nuclear and extended families where the chaos is amplified by the number of players. To some extent, we ve lost that Church-based notion that the family is sacred and that what goes on in the family shouldn t be challenged because only in the family will good Christian values be passed on, but the socio-cultural vestige of that belief obviously still dominates Irish society to a great, and a potentially damaging degree.
Do you believe the Catholic Church in Ireland is living up to its responsibilities in relation to child abuse?
I believe the Church, and any other body, which has been negligent and not protected children, should pay up. And there was an incredible inevitability that the Catholic Church in Ireland would be paying up, in large measure. The Catholic Church saw the American experience, they knew for years that cover-up, or moving guys around, had negative consequences and ended in great damage to the reputation of the Church, massive costs and a mass exodus from the Church, by young people in particular. So that really was bury-your-head-in-the-sand-and-hope-it-will-go-away stuff on their behalf.
The Christian Brothers did publicly apologise, talk about brutality and cruelty and having done things to children they shouldn t have done. That was a more significant apology than, say, the Catholic Church apologising to identified victims of child sexual abuse. The Catholic Church has done that in other countries but not here in Ireland. And even when their apologies are individualised they also are qualified on nearly every occasion. For example, the nuns in Goldenbridge have not yet publicly apologised, despite the settlement of certain cases. Those nuns should publicly apologise.
What was your response when the DPP said Sister Xaveria, from Goldenbridge, had nothing to answer for?
Christine Buckley carries on her body, to this day, scars from where she was split and had stitches applied and she is told that the Mercy Order are sorry for anything that went wrong, but they can t admit it and they won t apologise to her. It s time for global apologies, not individual apologies, from the Catholic Church in Ireland.
Back when we were children we were told, in our Green Catechism that the Church is the people. Well, one-third of the people is children and if the Church doesn t protect them or doesn t say sorry to those who were abused while in their care then it is an act of self-mutilation for the body of the Church. If they don t begin to see things along these lines then the Church in this country will be totally dead in no time at all. The seminaries will be empty, and deservedly so, if the Catholic Church doesn t accept its full responsibilities in relation to child abuse. To be fair to them, in 1994 the Catholic Church did, at least produce a very good framework document for protecting children. Unfortunately, as with the whole debate, it focused only on child sexual abuse.
Is it true that when children use the ISPCC Childline services only about one-third of the calls relate to child abuse, sexual or otherwise?
30% of our calls relate to child abuse, the rest relate to just the normal problems of growing up. And that brings into focus the fact that the ISPCC has moved from being primarily an investigator of child abuse cases to being an agency as broad as valuing the very notion of childhood. So what we re saying now is that good child care and child protection are synonymous. If we understand children s needs and respond you won t have to worry about the protection because that will follow. And what is the best way of learning what children actually need? By listening to them.
Let s face it, what, finally, is the greatest scandal in Ireland? That the health board failed one family, the McColgans, that in swimming there may have been one individual or an organised vice ring of individuals, or the fact that the statutory authorities, which are given the responsibility to protect children, are admitting, publicly, that they can t? Which is the greatest scandal? To me, for as long as we can t put our hand on our heart and say we are living up to our statutory responsibilities, we have to say that, as a nation, we are failing our children.
What s the single most important thing the Government can do right now, to rectify the situation?
Not unlike the Church, the Government must say out loud that the system has failed children, is failing children and will continue to fail children. The next move is to say no more secrets and the way to do that is mandatory reporting. This won t solve all problems, of course, but it will be a first step. n